OSHA Changes PSM Interpretation after Seven Years


		AcuSafe -> December 1999 Newsletter
		OSHA Changes PSM Interpretation After Seven Years

Recently, OSHA's Director of Compliance Programs issued a memorandum (174K PDF) for Regional Administrators and State Designees that rescinded several letters of interpretation concerning the application of the Process Safety Management standard (29 CFR 1910.119) to oil and gas production facilities. This memo also offered a clarification that even short daily visits may preclude exclusion under the "normally unoccupied remote facility” (NURF). Read more on this important issue.

The letters rescinded by OSHA date back to 1992 and make suggestions that regular, ongoing operations such as water separation are not included for PSM coverage. Copies (12K PDF File) of these letters are available at AcuSafe because OSHA has removed them from the interpretations database on its website.

OSHA's rationale for the removal is that the previous letters erroneously stated that oil and gas production facilities, including related oil, gas, and water separation facilities, were excluded from PSM coverage under the oil and gas well drilling and servicing exemption. In fact, according to OSHA, well drilling and servicing operations, which are exempt from PSM, are distinct from production operations. It was OSHA's intention to cover well drilling and servicing activities in a separate standard (hence the exemption from PSM). But OSHA has never developed this rule. It is also thought by industry insiders that OSHA is reacting to having to rescind citations on the Sonat Exploration Company incident in Bryceland, LA, which killed 4 workers in March 1998.

Possibly more troublesome for some AcuSafe readers is the statement Richard Fairfax makes in the third-from-last paragraph of the November 4, 1999 memorandum. He says that some oil and gas production facilities may continue to be exempt from the PSM standard because they may be covered by the "normally unoccupied remote facility (NURF) exception." Fairfax goes on to say, "Employees may visit remote sites periodically to check operations, and to perform maintenance and operation activities. OSHA does not, however, consider daily visits, regardless of duration, to constitute "periodic" visits for the purposes of this exception."

This interpretation is troublesome in that it is completely inconsistent with another OSHA interpretation where it states that a remote chlorine operation at which employees work up to 1.5 hours per day as well as a few additional hours each week and each month "would be considered a normally unoccupied remote facility which would be excepted from PSM Standard coverage.”

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is concerned about this OSHA memo and is aggressively pursuing the matter. Be sure to read about developments in future issues of AcuSafe News™.